Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Peterson's shrinking balls a growing concern?
Comments
-
The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ tookUW_Doog_Bot said:
Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.YellowSnow said:
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.
That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?
Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.917 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success. -
YrykTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's last three head coaching hires prove that Oregon has no expectations.Mosster47 said:
He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
That's an interesting poont. -
THIS RIGHT FUCKING HEREUW_Doog_Bot said:
Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.YellowSnow said:
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.
That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?
Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.
Blame Sark
Blame ole Trebuchet
Blame Babushka
Blame Browning
Fuck right off, its been 5 years, NFL RBs, WRs, TEs fucking everywhere AND a consistently good defense.
Fucking Pete need to fix HIS offense or DIAFF -
MoosterFuckingStupidMosster47 said:
He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
That's an interesting poont. -
Hey, I still think Pete is on the right track long term but to quote an economist, "We're all dead in the long term."YellowSnow said:
The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ tookUW_Doog_Bot said:
Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.YellowSnow said:
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.
That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?
Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.917 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success.
We all know the on the field success is lagging all the other metrics like recruiting right now but how many other fan bases do we make fun of for that same trope?201920202021[Fill in the blank] could be special. At what point do we have to have a special season and not just the future hope of one?
Nut up and win the PAC12 and a rosebowl this year. It's tim. -
Let's lose to Utah before we start with the bi-polar meltdowns.
-
Wrong, wrong, wrong.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Hey, I still think Pete is on the right track long term but to quote an economist, "We're all dead in the long term."YellowSnow said:
The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ tookUW_Doog_Bot said:
Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.YellowSnow said:
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.
That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?
Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.917 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success.
We all know the on the field success is lagging all the other metrics like recruiting right now but how many other fan bases do we make fun of for that same trope?201920202021[Fill in the blank] could be special. At what point do we have to have a special season and not just the future hope of one?
Nut up and win the PAC12 and a rosebowl this year. It's tim.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-college-football-teams-do-the-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
-
Honestly I think it's the defense this season that has a better chance of letting us down than Jake and the offense. lack of pass rush and ZERO play making ability in the front 7 is very concerning. No picks by our DBs in two games doesn't look good either.
-
That's only for 2015-2016...which no one denied we were outperforming ourselves in 2016.YellowSnow said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Hey, I still think Pete is on the right track long term but to quote an economist, "We're all dead in the long term."YellowSnow said:
The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ tookUW_Doog_Bot said:
Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.YellowSnow said:
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.
That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?
Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.917 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success.
We all know the on the field success is lagging all the other metrics like recruiting right now but how many other fan bases do we make fun of for that same trope?201920202021[Fill in the blank] could be special. At what point do we have to have a special season and not just the future hope of one?
Nut up and win the PAC12 and a rosebowl this year. It's tim.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-college-football-teams-do-the-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
Got a fupdate to include last year? -
DBs have been my biggest disappointment, followed by LB play & depth.justthrowitinthebag said:Honestly I think it's the defense this season that has a better chance of letting us down than Jake and the offense. lack of pass rush and ZERO play making ability in the front 7 is very concerning. No picks by our DBs in two games doesn't look good either.
